Economic Aspects of Indian RemovalJoseph T. Manzo

Southeastern Geographer, Volume 24, Number 2, November 1984, pp. 115-125(Article)

Published by The University of North Carolina PressDOI:

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of Arizona (6 May 2017 04:15 GMT)

https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1984.0012

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/429452/summary

Southeastern GeographerVol. 24, No. 2, November 1984, pp. 115-125

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF INDIAN REMOVAL

Joseph T. Manzo

Although Indian removal has been studied from a variety of per-spectives, including social and cultural aspects, this paper offers anotherperspective. (J) Its purpose is to illustrate some of the economic aspectsof Indian removal. Not forgetting its demeaning and unjust nature,Indian removal represented a large scale, federal stimulation of indi-vidual entrepreneurial activity during peacetime. For example, south-eastern Indians, during the time frame of this study, 1831 to 1833,contributed greatly to the support of the Arkansas territory. Data in-dicate money paid by the government to individuals (primarily Anglosbut also Indians) worked its way into the fabric of American society,especially in the trans-Appalachian frontier. (2)It should be noted that studies documenting Indian economic im-

pact on Anglo society do exist ranging from the shaping of the corn beltof the Midwest to wild horse herding in the basin and range country.(3) However, except for Terry Jordan's Trails to Texas, Malcolm Rohr-bough's The Trans-Appalachian Frontier, and Arthur H. DeRosier Jr.'sThe Removal of the Choctaw Indians, the last quarter century's researchhas contributed little in the way of pre-1840 insights into native Amer-icans and the American economy. (4)

ECONOMIC TIES WITH INDIANS. Indians and Anglos were econom-ically tied in a variety of ways prior to Indian removal. For example,gifts given to secure Indian allies or treaties were part of the normalnegotiating process. In the early nineteenth century the Wampum BeadCompany of Hackensack, New Jersey made its living directly from In-dian gifts sold to traders and the federal government. (5) Later, astreaties of peace and friendship gave way to negotiations for Indian land,the government began paying Indians on a regular basis.The fur trade serves as another example of economic interdepen-

dency as the Indian "subordinated and eliminated all crafts except thosedirectly related to the European-Indian trade." (6) Native Americansalso became a readily available home market for American products.

Dr. Manzo is Assistant Professor ofGeography at Concord College, Athens, WV24712.

116Southeastern Geographer

This can be seen in a letter from Pottawatomi leaders Alexander Rob-inson and Billy Caldwell. They write of the usual custom of Indianslocating themselves in small hunting parties in the vicinity of whitesettlement "for the purpose of exchanging their peltry and skins withtheir white brethren for the coming winter's necessities." (7) Othereconomic interaction involved the liquor trade and the Indian traderwho supplied the Indians' sundry needs in exchange for yearly monetarypayments.

INDIAN REMOVAL. Indian removal involves more than just gifts, em-ployment and trade. In the first half of the nineteenth century, theIndian was a multifaceted problem to Anglos. In large part the nativeAmerican was an immediate problem to individuals from both northand south who wanted his land and wealth. Also, throughout thecountry there existed a general moral indignation at the Indians' failureto embrace the concept of private property. Concomitantly, Indian sym-pathizers supported Indian removal as a means of protecting the easternIndian from the decadent influence of whites. Thus, western relocationwas favored either to save the Indian or to get him out from underfoot.Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Bill on May 28, 1830.

By this time, the aforementioned materialistic and humanitarian forcesin support of removal had come together under a president who hadlittle love for the Indian. Also, there was a growing federal surplusproviding ample funds for this removal project. (8)Congress initially authorized $500,000 for removing all eastern In-

dians to the west side of the Mississippi River. (9) Available data indicatethat approximately $70,000,000 was spent between 1832 and 1837 inthe Old Northwest. (JO) By the 1850s, through final relocation in Okla-homa, $100,000,000 plus was spent. (JJ) This paper focuses on the timeframe 1831-1833 when approximately $900,000 was spent primarily onChoctaw and Cherokee, as well as Pottawatomi, Shawnee, Kickapoo,Seneca, and Ottawa. This amount becomes all the more noteworthybecause of the distribution of payments in society. Although paymentswere sometimes contested or deferred for long periods of time, thefederal government by virtue of payments to carpenters, doctors,farmers, businessmen, horse traders and teamsters stimulated indi-vidual entrepreneurial activity. Henry Clay's 1824 request to Congressfor the creation of "a home market", a focus for spending Americanmoney in America, was a reality in 1830. (J 2)

Vol. XXIV, No. 2 117

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF REMOVAL. The Indians included in thisstudy are from the areas east of the Mississippi River and north andsouth of the Ohio River. Of the approximate $900,000 spent on relo-cating Choctaw, Cherokee, Pottawatomi, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Seneca,and Ottawa during the time frame of 1831-1833, approximately$742,000 was spent on the first two groups with most by far paid toindividuals to subsist the Choctaw. In the decade of the 1830s, theCherokee would come to epitomize the harshness of forced removal ontheir "Trail of Tears" to the West. (J 3) In the first three years of thedecade, however, the eyes of the United States were focused on theChoctaw, the first group to negotiate for western lands under the IndianRemoval Bill of 1830. (14) This group was chosen for several reasonsincluding the influx ofAnglo settlers into Mississippi, the social stabilityof the Choctaw, the good soil conditions of their land, and the shorterdistance between their location in Mississippi and the Arkansas territorythan for other southeastern groups. (J 5) The government's plan was todemonstrate the ease and cheapness with which this tribe could bemoved. To this end, the government was disappointed as removal tookthree years and cost $712,000, 95 percent of government money spenton all Indians between 1831-1833.The migration routes of the Choctaw and Cherokee took them from

their eastern homelands to present-day Oklahoma (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).Along the way money was spent for food, clothing, shelter, and othernecessities. Some of this money was paid to native Americans such asTall Mittube who made $6.00 and David Folsom who made in excessof $1,200. (J 6) Joel Nail, a Choctaw, had achieved a fairly high statusbefore removal from Mississippi. (J 7) He was educated and was referredto by some as chief for his district. On the way west he was in chargeof supplies for his migrating group. Nail made $2,532.97 from Choctawmigration for hauling salt, providing a wagon, and providing some beefand corn. (JS) Robert Nail, his brother, made several hundred dollarsalso. (J 9)Anglos also earned money moving Indians west. In fact, the amount

of money earned was so great that "In the early days . . . the economyof the [Arkansas] territory rested largely on the maintenance of In-dians." (20) This is a reasonable statement given the government's ob-ligation to subsist the Indians for at least one year in their new home.The Arkansas firm of Byrd and Belding, for example, earned over$27,000 in a two-year period just from supplying beef and corn. (2J)

118 Southeastern Geographer

Ml SSOURI

Springfield

»Hopklnsvitle

TENN ESSEE

ARKANSAS

Little hoch

astii ngt o

KENTUCKY

\

Routes of the

Choctaw and Cherokee

-Chero kee

-Choctaw

Source'. Redrawn from material compiled by Gfant Foreman

Fig. 1. Westward migration routes of the Choctaw and Cherokee.

Concomitantly, great sums of money were spent on individuals sup-plying smaller amounts of goods and less expensive services. Allen C.Yates made $318 supplying wagons and teams. (22) Matthew Williamsearned $1.50 for a branding iron, and M. J. Williams earned $4.50 forrepairing a bridge. (23) Other money found its way into eastern statesfor goods and services. The Deringer Firearms Company of Philadel-phia supplied 500 rifles to the Choctaw and earned $6,732.60, whilethe Dupont Company of Wilmington, Delaware earned $2,139.50 forsupplying gun powder. (24) Single payments to individuals ranged from$1.25, earned by Arkansan Abram Smith for one and one-half bushelsof corn, to $30,625 for the same commodity paid to Texan JesseeShelton. (25) Although all of the individuals involved in the removalprocess are not identifiable, it is clear that Anglos from Mississippi,Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisana earned moneyfrom the removal of southern Indians. It should be kept in mind thatthis was not the first money to reach the frontier. There had alwaysbeen opportunities to sell pelts or work for a large estate owner with

Vol. XXIV, No. 2 119

some capital. There were also public work projects such as river androad improvement jobs. Indian removal provided a new money makingopportunity for frontiersmen after 1830. The following section high-lights some of the goods and services which provided money for thefrontiersmen.

PROVISION OF CORN, REEF, AND PORK. Corn, long a staple inthe diet of American Indians but seen as "poor man's food" by Anglos,was included in the list of provisions to be purchased for emigrantIndians. (26) Its near universal use in the trans-Appalachian West, cou-pled with varying degrees of commercial orientation, made it easy tosupply. To help insure the availability of corn and other products forthe emigrant tribes, George Gibson, commissary general, wrote to hismen instructing them as follows:

Make yourself thoroughly acquainted with the present and probablefuture resources of the country for furnishing the Indian ration of corn,beef or pork and salt. You are requested to apprize the nearest settlers ofthe probable market they will soon have for their corn and cattle and holdout every proper inducement for them to raise both in quantities sufficientto meet the expected demand. (27)

The Arkansas Gazette "urged its readers to cooperate." (28) Suchencouragement was well received as emigration officer Captain Clark

OKLAHOMAWestern

Indian Lands

Cherokee

Choctaw

Source". Redrawn from Foreman S Derosier

Fig. 2. Western relocation areas for the Choctaw and Cherokee.

120Southeastern Geographer

noted that Arkansans had planted more corn than cotton. (29) To helpinsure provisions, corn was also ordered from St. Louis and New Or-leans on a standby basis. (30) Contracts for corn, as with other provi-sions, went out to the lowest bidders with a warning to purchasingagents to "be particularly guarded against combinations among bid-ders." (3J)Between the second quarter of 1831 and the fourth quarter of 1833,

approximately 70 different individuals supplied corn. Of these, somesupplied corn on more than one occasion and the money paid to anindividual supplier varied with the amount supplied. Moreover, theamount earned by suppliers was influenced by the market price whichranged from 500 per bushel to $2.00 per bushel during this time frame.(32) It should be noted that the price of corn in the 1820s was around100 per bushel, its lowest price since 1793. (32) The price rose in theearly 1830s. The large amount of corn supplied to the Indians wouldseem to be a contributing factor to the higher prices. (34) Also, theextremely wet spring and summer of 1833 lessened the available supplyof corn which allowed for higher prices. (35) Arkansan John H. Fowlerand the Arkansas trading firm of Byrd and Belding made large sums ofmoney supplying corn to the Choctaws. In the fourth quarter of 1831,Fowler was paid $5,125.42. In the second quarter of 1832 Byrd andBelding made $8,056.45. (36) Texan Benjamin Milam earned $4,231.22delivering corn in the first quarter of 1832. (37) James Picken and JamesJones of Arkansas did not fare nearly as well in the fourth quarter of1831; at 500 per bushel they made $5.50 and $2.00 respectively. (38)There was also money to be made from activities related to sup-

plying corn. Arkansan Hiram Vincent was paid $51.00 for transportingcorn, while William Gutery, also an Arkansan, earned $3.00 for buildinga corn crib. (39)If the incomes of those individuals at the high end of the scale are

compared to the estimated per capita income of $400 per annum in thisperiod, it can be concluded that Indian removal resulted in considerablemoney for some frontiersmen. (40)While meat such as venison, turkey, prairie hens, and bear was

foraged along the way west, the greatest quantities were supplied tothe migrant groups. Beef and pork were purchased on the hoof anddriven to various points on the trail for convenient slaughter. Of thetwo meats involved, beef was supplied in the greatest quantities, per-haps even in quantities beyond one's expectation for the nature of early

Vol. XXIV, No. 2 121

emigration. Because the Choctaw were the first group to move, extrapains were taken to help insure the success of their relocation in orderto quiet detractors. In the first quarter of 1833, Byrd and Belding alonesupplied 398,000 pounds of beef at prices that ranged from $3.07 to$3.23 per 100 pounds. (41) In the same quarter, Texan Lorenzo N. Clarksupplied 328,000 pounds of beef at $3.24 per 100 pounds. (42) Withinthe time frame of this study, large amounts of money could be earnedfrom the sale of beef. Frontiersman Jacob Buzzard earned over $13,000from the sale of beef to government contractors, while F. A. Mc-Williams, a Virginian newly removed to Arkansas, earned $7,480. (43)The government's demand for beef created the first markets for

cattle from northeast Texas. (44) Although the Indian market did notlast long, large sums of money were exchanged at prices several millshigher than the level paid by the nongovernmental market. As well,the continuation of Indian herding traditions in the West formed thebasis for both the pre and post Civil War cattle industry.Although pork was a dietary staple in the West and South, relatively

little was supplied for the Indian. This situation may have been due tothe small supply available or to the demand of other established marketsor because of dietary preference. It should be noted that some of theunaccountable pork drains in the post 1832 period which were men-tioned by Hilliard may have been due partly to the Indian market. (45)Nonetheless, as with beef and corn, the amount of money earned frompork varied. Arkansan R. H. Callaway was paid $2.60, while GeorgeW. Barclay and Company made $1,223.20 for supplying approximately20,000 pounds of bacon. (46) Edward Wilson cleaned and repacked thebacon, thus earning himself $48.00. (47) Data for the two-year periodshow approximately 2,000,000 pounds of beef were supplied to Indiansand just over 125,000 pounds of pork. (48) As with money supplied forcorn and corn-related activities, various amounts also were paid for tasksrelated to supplying meat.

PROVISION OF RATIONS AND OTHER SERVICES. Although madeup in part of corn and beef or pork, rations constituted an independentcategory of food provisions. Each ration consisted of one-half pound ofbeef or pork, one pint of corn or an equivalent in corn meal or flour,and two quarts of salt for every 100 rations issued. (40) The price perration ranged from 60 to 12.50 and, as with other commodities, theprice variation probably reflected the supply available from the private

122 Southeastern Geographer

sector. (50) It should be noted that the 12.50/ration paid by Lt. S. T.Cross in what is today Camden, Arkansas was considered an exorbitantprice by the government, while the low price of 60 paid to the Missis-sippi company of Wright and Ragsdale provided less than an adequateration nutritionally according to the Army. (51) Wright and Ragsdalemade just $209 from rations which they supplied. (52) Of course, con-siderable sums of money could be made from supplying rations, as canbe seen in the July 3, 1833, edition of the Arkansas Gazette whichadvertised for 359,340 rations. (53) Matthew Moore made approxi-mately $20,000, while Jesse Shelton made $24,000. (54)The government spent the most money on food (Table 1). However,

moving the Indian west required that money be spent for goods andservices beyond dietary necessities and their accompanying expenses(Table 2). There were teamsters to be hired, wagons to be rented androads to be cut.

CONCLUSION. Although Indian removal as an idea can be traced backthrough several presidential administrations to the British Proclamationof 1763, under Andrew Jackson's administration it was mandated. Thegovernment put money into the American economy while moving In-dians west. While some of this money found its way into the East, agood portion flowed into the frontier areas. Although the initial amountof $500,000 approved by Congress for removing all eastern Indians wasspent in less than three years on one group, the government continuedto spend. Indian removal provided the opportunity to earn money that

TABLE 1EXAMPLES OF MONEY EARNED SUPPLYING FOOD TO CHOCTAW

AND CHEROKEE 1831-1833

Recipient ResidenceProvisionSupplied Amount

Byrd & BeldingLorenzo N. ClarkF. A. McWilliamsJohn H. FowlerBenjamin MilamEnoch J. SmithJessee SheltonMatthew MooreWright & Ragsdale

Arkansas578,000 pounds ofbeef$18,419.60Texas328,000 pounds ofbeef$10,627.20Virginia200,000 pounds ofbeef$7,480.00Arkansascorn$ 5,125.42Texascorn$ 4,231.00Arkansassupplyingcorn$ 1,000.00Texasrations$24,000.00Arkansasrations$20,000.00Mississippirations$ 200.00

Source: United States Senate Document 512, 23rd Congress, Vol. 1.

Vol. XXIV, No. 2 123

TABLE 2EXAMPLES OF NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH

INDIAN REMOVAL

building log cabinsproviding forage for horsestransporting Indians leftbehind sick

for hasps and staples,padlocks

interpretersstationerycoffins

clothingrifle flints

wagons and teamsrifle powdertents

barrels for crackers

candles

medicines

wood

Osnaburg linenrope

jackscrews and wagonwhips

finding stray animals

Currycombsyokes of oxenchain

whiskeytar

making bridgesroad buildinggeneral freightbear's oil

tablespoonswines

soap

Source: United States Senate Document 512, 23rd Congress, Vol. 1.

could be turned into power, land or at the very least supplies for anotheryear. The future cattle industry of the east Texas area began with theIndian market. Indian removal may have started some fortunes but itmore than likely added to already existing estates. Examples of moneyearned from Indian removal point to the southeastern Indian being anintegral part of American economic history.

(1) Examples include James A. Clifton, The Prairie People: Continuity andChange in Pottawatomi Indian Culture 1665-1965 (Lawrence: The RegentsPress of Kansas, 1977); George Schultz, An Indian Canaan: Issac McCoy andthe Vision of an Indian State (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972);Jesse O. McKee and Jon A. Schienken, The Choctaw: Cultural Evolution ofa Native American Tribe (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1980); Jo-seph T. Manzo, "Native Americans, Euro-Americans: Some Shared AttitudesToward Life in the Praries," American Studies, Vol. 23 (1982), pp. 39-49.

124Southeastern Geographer

(2)Primary source data for this study were provided by Document 512 of theUnited States Senate 23rd Congress, First Session, Volumes 1-5. Also usedwere "M-234, Letters Received at the Indian Agencies 1824-81," and T-494,"Documents Relating to Negotiations of Ratified and Unratified Treaties withVarious Tribes 1801-1869." Both are subgroups of Record Group 75, Recordsof the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

(3)Joseph Spencer and Ronald J. Horvath, "How Does an Agricultural RegionOriginate?" Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 68 (1979), pp.382-402; Tom L. McKnight, "The Feral Horse in Anglo-America, " Geograph-ical Review Vol. 49 (1959), pp. 506-525.

(4)Terry G. Jordan, Trails to Texas: Southern Roots ofWestern Cattle Ranching(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981); Malcolm J. Rohrbough, TheTrans-Appalachain Fronter: People, Societies and Institutions 1775-1850(New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); Arthur H. DeRosier Jr., The Re-moval of the Choctaw Indians (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press,1970).

(5)Report undated, Record Group M-234, Microfilm Roll 715 (Washington, D.C:National Archives).

(6)Ronald N. Satz, American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Lincoln: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press, 1975).

(7)Correspondence dated January 18, 1833, Record Group M-234, Microfilm Roll132 (Washington, D.C: National Archives).

(8)It should be noted that while removal scholars agree that government moti-vation was based on assimilation and humanitarianism, Satz points out in hisbook that on several occasions Jackson's congressional opponents noted thegreat cost involved in moving eastern Indians. Satz also notes that Jackson'sadvisors were aware of the large amounts of money being spent. Records ofthe Bureau of Indian Affairs point to Jackson's awareness through experienceof the potentially huge sums of money to be spent in Indian negotiations.Although sufficient documentation is lacking, I would speculate that Indianremoval was also seen by Jackson's advisors as a convenient way to relieve agrowing treasury surplus. Moreover, much of this money would flow to Jack-son's constituency on the frontier. See Satz, footnote 6; R. A. Billington, West-ward Expansion: The History of the American Frontier (New York: MacMillanCompany, 1969).

(9)Francis Prucha, Documents ofUnited States Indian Policy (Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska Press, 1975).

(10)Billington, footnote 8, p. 301.(11)L. D. Baldwin, The Stream ofAmerican History, Vol. 1 (New York: American

Book Company, 1971), p. 527.(12)Billington, footnote 8, pp. 350-351. Clay was interested in government pro-

tecting domestic business, providing jobs and creating a market for southernstaples, Howard Quilt et. al, (ed.), Main Problems in American History(Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1978), p. 160.

(13)Grant Foreman, Indian Removal (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,1931), pp. 229-294.

(14)Ibid., pp. 19-93; DeRosier Jr., footnote 4.(15)Ibid., p. 164.(16)Senate Document 512, footnote 15, pp. 949-1177.(17)Foreman, footnote 13, pp. 56-58.

Vol. XXIV, No. 2 125

(is;(19;(2o;(21(22;

(23'(24(25:(26;

(27;(28'(29(30'(31(32(33'(34

(35'(36(37(38(39'(40;

(41(42'(43;

(44'(45;

(46'(47(48(49'(50'(51(52'(53(54;

Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Rohrbough, footnote 4, p. 177.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177. It is not specified as to whether the teams were horsesor mules.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Paul W. Gates, The Farmer's Age: Agriculture, 1815-1860 (New York: Harper& Row Publishers, 1969), p. 169.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, p. 5.DeRosier Jr., footnote 4, p. 138.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, p. 553; DeRosier Jr., footnote 4, p. 138.Ibid., DeRosier.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Billington, footnote 8, pp. 349-350; Rohrbough, footnote 4, p. 196.C W. Wright, Economic History of the United States (New York: McGrawHill, 1949), p. 295.DeRosier Jr., footnote 4, p. 154.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., p. 987.Ibid., pp. 953 and 949.George Rogers Taylor, "American Economic Growth Before 1840," Journalof Economic History, Vol. 24 (1964), pp. 427-445.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177; the records are unclear as to whether Mr. Buzzard re-sided in Arkansas or Texas.Jordan, footnote 5, p. 94.Sam B. Hilliard, "Pork in the Antebellum South: The Geography of SeIf-Sufficiency," Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol 59 (1969), pp.461-481.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.Ibid., pp. 949-1177.DeRosier Jr., footnote 4, p. 160.Senate Document 512, footnote 16, pp. 949-1177.